Post by The Curmudgeon on Aug 9, 2016 16:08:04 GMT 2
So I've just ordered from Amazon "Pure McCartney", the very first time there's been a collection of Paul's post-Beatle work. What's interesting is that it's a 3 disc collection, compiled and remastered by McCartney himself. So it's not just hits, it's what he thinks are his best songs as well.
The split of the Beatles and the animosity between Lennon and McCartney is well documented, on paper as well as through their own material and their own veiled jabs at each other. So Lennon vs McCartney is a debate that will probably go on forever. So let's keep the ball rolling here.
It's a bit unfair to judge a body of work that was stopped brutally short when he was still very much a hit making machine against a guy who's still making music 30 years on. On the one hand, Lennon's music has achieved that "untouchable" quality, even though it could be argued most people really only know a handful of songs. McCartney plugs away, touring and recording through the sheer love of it (I don't imagine he needs the money), and it's been a long time since anything McCartney did really caught the public's attention.
Anyway, where would you be in the Lennon vs McCartney debate? If we're comparing their individual work, it's clear that Lennon had more edge and bite than McCartney ever did. Paul never wrote anything like "Woman is the Nigger of the World" but then again John never wrote "Live and Let Die."
I'd say Lennon is arguably the more interesting songwriter and musician whereas Paul concentrated more on just writing great songs. Lennon was no pop slouch, though; "Woman, Jealous Guy, Imagine.." are all up there in some of the finest pop songs around. But then his more, er, "artistic" leanings could overshadow his music and turn things way more self indulgent than McCartney.
A quick scan through McCartney's output and you'll find no end of pop gems; Jet, Somebody's Knockin, Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run.. even if some of his biggest hits haven't exactly aged well (I could happily never hear "Mull of Kintyre" or "Ebony and Ivory" ever again).
So what do you think? What camp do you find yourself in?
The split of the Beatles and the animosity between Lennon and McCartney is well documented, on paper as well as through their own material and their own veiled jabs at each other. So Lennon vs McCartney is a debate that will probably go on forever. So let's keep the ball rolling here.
It's a bit unfair to judge a body of work that was stopped brutally short when he was still very much a hit making machine against a guy who's still making music 30 years on. On the one hand, Lennon's music has achieved that "untouchable" quality, even though it could be argued most people really only know a handful of songs. McCartney plugs away, touring and recording through the sheer love of it (I don't imagine he needs the money), and it's been a long time since anything McCartney did really caught the public's attention.
Anyway, where would you be in the Lennon vs McCartney debate? If we're comparing their individual work, it's clear that Lennon had more edge and bite than McCartney ever did. Paul never wrote anything like "Woman is the Nigger of the World" but then again John never wrote "Live and Let Die."
I'd say Lennon is arguably the more interesting songwriter and musician whereas Paul concentrated more on just writing great songs. Lennon was no pop slouch, though; "Woman, Jealous Guy, Imagine.." are all up there in some of the finest pop songs around. But then his more, er, "artistic" leanings could overshadow his music and turn things way more self indulgent than McCartney.
A quick scan through McCartney's output and you'll find no end of pop gems; Jet, Somebody's Knockin, Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run.. even if some of his biggest hits haven't exactly aged well (I could happily never hear "Mull of Kintyre" or "Ebony and Ivory" ever again).
So what do you think? What camp do you find yourself in?
